Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, China and Japan, Volume XIV, Part 1

790.00/7–1754: Telegram

No. 234
The Ambassador in India (Allen) to the Department of State¹

secret

New Delhi, July 17, 1954—4 p.m.

70. Re Embtel 69, July 17, 1954. I have just had long talk with Vice President Radhakrishnan who repeated much of same information Nehru gave Douglas re Chou visit. Radhakrishnan added that in his own talks with Chou he had pointed out that India is concerned over Communist infiltration in neighboring areas, particularly Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Burma. He said Chou declared his determination to prevent Chinese interference in other countries. Radhakrishnan says he also expressed concern to Chou over Chinese repression of Tibetan way of life. Chou said Peking authorities would make every effort to win voluntary Tibetan cooperation.

Radhakrishnan says he pointed out to Chou that Indian Communist Party opposes Indian membership in Commonwealth. He mentioned numerous instances in which India had been able to influence British policy as justification for continued Commonwealth membership. Radhakrishnan said Chou thereafter expressed opinion that India should remain inside Commonwealth. That evening Chou repeated this advice to Nehru. … Radhakrishnan said Chou was “reasonable about everything except the US”. Chou said as long as US was determined to put Chiang Kai-shek back in Peking, his government had no alternative but to maintain its military strength at highest possible potential. If US would agree to respect Chinese territorial integrity, Peking would “disband its army”. I asked whether territorial integrity included Formosa. Radhakrishnan said Chou did not “go into details.”

Radhakrishnan then repeated to me standard GOI argument that Chou is “reasonable man you can talk to” and US should recognize Peking regime. I expressed opinion that recognition of Peking would have no more influence in strengthening that regime than our recognition of Moscow had had, and referred to way British diplomats in Peking have been treated. Radhakrishnan said he spoke to Chou about British treatment and was glad to note recent reports that ambassadors would be exchanged.² I expressed doubt that ambassadors would have any more influence than chargé d’affaires.

. . . . . . .

Allen

1. Repeated for information to London and Paris.
2. The British and Chinese Governments had announced on June 17 their agreement that the latter would send a chargé d’affaires to London having the same position and duties as the British Chargé in Peking. Previously, the British Chargé in Peking had not been so recognized by the Chinese Government, and no diplomatic representative had been sent from Peking to London.